R/D1

As I read both of the articles about integrating technology in the classrooms, I found both sides to have valid points. Although I found myself to lean more toward Joseph and Reigeluth’s opinions about technology being a useful necessity in classrooms, but maybe not to as much of an extent that they have in mind. As I was comparing the opinions of the authors from each article I automatically was interested in the date that these articles had been published, and I was not surprised by what I saw.

Postman’s of Luddites, Learning, and Life was published in 1993, which at this time in society technology wasn’t used as it is today nor could the vision of what we have today even been of mind. I feel for postman but these are his thoughts and can’t expect for everyone to be just like him with not wanting changes. He states in his article “you cannot work fro a newspaper unless you use a word processor, which eliminates me, since I do all of my composing with a pen and yellow pad and do not wish to change”. Well there you have it, he could work for a newspaper but he does not wish to change, or is it that he does not wish to learn how to use new technologies? I still like to write things out on paper but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think I shouldn’t be able to use a word processor, because I know that this is what society has come to be. I graduated high school ten years ago and didn’t have any of the technology that is available now, but I learned how to use it. Learning is a part of life if we like it or not we live in a changing world. The only thing that really allows me to take Postman’s side is the cost of all this technology. Postman states “what is the problem to which this $50 billion investment is the solution?” and I believe he answered his own question “it solves the problem of giving more people greater access to more information faster”. What is wrong with that? It’s 2011 now and we have busy lives which technology will help students get ready for.

Moving on to another point Postman makes about how school has never been about individualized learning, that it has always been about how to learn and how to behave as a part of a community, well maybe individualized learning in a group setting is more realistic for this day and age. This is where technology can come to benefit students to become more prepared for what to expect in the professional fields. I don’t agree that technology in schools will eventually lead to the abandonment of schools; students still need the guidance that teachers can give them.

My standpoint leads to the article Beyond Technology Integration: The Case for Technology Transformation by Joseph and Reigeluth. I agree with the opening paragraph that technology is “typically used to support the prevailing methods in that field” and “used to create methods that were previously not feasible”. As a teacher in a school system that doesn’t receive much funding it is hard to use technology that would allow students to get more use out of a lesson, especially being in the Science field. Technology can allow for visual and hands on activities for each student to play around and grasp topics better, but a teacher is still there to instruct, guide, and answer questions. Here is where “soft-strategies” would work great to accomplish lessons. Although I don’t have much opportunity to use technology there are plenty of times I wish it was available for more in depth instruction and learning. Not only is technology great for teaching lessons, but it is useful for tracking students progress, such as scantron testing to see what a student really knows.

To close, I would like to state that use of technology in the classroom is a checkmark on teacher evaluations, so the educational system must believe that it is a necessity for students to learn in the 21^st century, which stands by Joseph’s point that technology use is “a quantum improvement in our ability to meet those new needs.